Recent Comments

Prev  1530  1531  1532  1533  1534  1535  1536  1537  1538  1539  1540  1541  1542  1543  1544  1545  Next

Comments 76851 to 76900:

76851. Tom Curtis at 00:24 AM on 21 August 2011
       Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
       apirate @17, well if we are going to be pedantic you should also include mention of CO2 from cement. The latest figures from CDIAC are: Land Use Changes - 11.6% Cement - 4% Fossil Fuels - 84.4%
76852. Bob Lacatena at 00:12 AM on 21 August 2011
       There is no consensus
       409, Rickoxo,

       I'd think the GWS community would kick out the Doran paper because it so easily opens them up to criticism.

       I personally don't see the paper as part of GWS. It's published by a GW scientist, but it's social science. Maybe that's why it's weak, and a social scientist should tackle the issue. Interestingly, that's what Wegman tried to do, too, to use social sciences against the consensus, implying that part of the consensus results from confirmation bias resulting from an old boy network among climate scientists. Interestingly, he used a network of his own friends to write his own report, and has been accused of grossly plagiarizing along the way. But my whole point is "why all the emphasis on social sciences and confirming the consensus?" This isn't an issue with any subject except climate science. Why? Because questioning the science won't work in this case, so questioning the scientists is even better. Sow mistrust and doubt. And you're buying into it.

       ...there wouldn't be 93 out of 910 physicists with at least 20 journal publications who don't believe Newtonian mechanics describes simple observable motion of objects.

       This is a strawman. How do you jump from Newtonian mechanics, a hundreds years old foundation of physics, to cardiologists. How about instead whether or not cholesterol intake affects future heart disease? See this article on a new cholesterol drug. It's an interesting parallel. There is a dispute over the efficacy versus dangers of the drug. The specialists, cardiologists, are primarily in agreement (I can't find the stats, but I'll bet it's only 9 of 10). The FDA panel voted 12 to 4. The general physicians strongly disagree! What does this sound like to you? And this example isn't perfect, because it's about a particular drug, with extreme (dangerous) side effects. But what about statin's in general? I'll bet you'll find cardiologists that don't think they should be used, and even more general physicians in that camp. So... do you think people shouldn't take statin's to protect against heart disease? More important, do you see all sorts of studies that need to prove the consensus before people will buy into this whole, questionable "cholesterol" thing?
       Response:

       [DB] To be fair, I believe I introduced cardiologists (and oncologists) into the discussion as an analogy.  However, having sold statins and Crestor to cardiologists, lipidologists and primary care physicians for years, you have the gist of it.  The experts who are using advanced lipid testing are now able to parse out those individuals for whom statins will be ineffective much more readily than before.  And Crestor's unique primary prevention indication is still limited to those individuals who still have normal lipid levels but a combination of other risk factors, thereby constraining its prophylactic use.

       By now I'm waaaay off-topic & apologize for that.  Moral:  get advanced lipid testing done.  It may save your life.

76853. apiratelooksat50 at 00:07 AM on 21 August 2011
       Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
       Y'all hold on to your hats - I agree with this post. Though, I think references to land use/change could be added to the end of the following sentence to be more accurate. "As you can see, there are many lines of evidence showing that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to human fossil fuel combustion."
76854. Tom Curtis at 00:04 AM on 21 August 2011
       There is no consensus
       Rickoxo @410, I think your interpretation of Anderegg is simplistic. You have assumed that for a given climate scientist who has published 20 or more papers, they are as likely to be included in Anderegg's survey if they are "Convinced by the Evidence" compared to if they are not "Convinced by the Evidence". That is a distinctly unsafe assumption. As is shown by the relative publication records of the CE and UE groups, only people with substantial records of achievement were included in the CE sample. In contrast, for those who are UE, no significant record of achievement was required, as is indicated by the high proportion of UE researchers with fewer than 20 publications. The consequence of this is that we can be sure that nearly all UE researchers with 20 plus publications found their way into Anderegg's study. In contrast, there is a significant probability that CE researchers with 20 plus publications where not included in the study. If we assume that the relative frequency of publication number is the same between the two groups, ie, that across all climate researchers, the proportion of CE researchers with 100+ publications relative to CE researchers with 20+ publications is approximately equal to the same proportion for UC researchers, then Anderegg's survey technique under represents CE researchers with 20+ publications by a factor of three or more. (This assumption amounts to the assumption that the greater "expertise" of CE researchers found by Anderegg is a function of greater numbers of CE researchers rather than of significantly greater intelligence.) If that assumption reflects reality, then UC researchers with 20+ publications represent 3.65% or less of all climate researchers with 20+ publications. However, I do not think we are justified in drawing that specific a conclusion. The conclusion that they represent 10% of all climate researchers with 20+ publications seems far more perilous to me. Still even with a 3.65% proportion, you might still be inclined to run your Newton argument. What that argument neglects is several key differences between Newtonian dynamics and climate science: 1) Newtonian Dynamics does not, as climate science does challenge some people's political ideologies; 2) Newtonian Dynamics does not, as climate science does challenge some people's value systems; 3) Newtonian Dynamics does not, as climate science does challenge some people's self image; 4) Newtonian Dynamics does not, as climate science does challenge some people's economic interests; and 5) Unlike Newtonian Dynamics, there are several billionaires (and several billion dollar corporations) that will actively fund people to challenge climate science. Given these clear sociological reasons for dissent, the proper comparison is not with a science like Newtonian Dynamics that challenges nobodies world view, but a science like evolutionary theory which as certain as Newtonian Dynamics, but challenging for many people.
76855. SteveS at 00:01 AM on 21 August 2011
       There is no consensus
       "So try out this idea and tell me if it helps folks understand what I'm facing as a skeptic. I absolutely guarantee, bet every penny I have, that there wouldn't be 93 out of 910 physicists with at least 20 journal publications who don't believe Newtonian mechanics describes simple observable motion of objects. Those laws are easy to understand, can be empirically validated any time and there wouldn't be 10% of the physicist community saying objects don't accelerate when they fall or momentum doesn't = mass times velocity." I think you've picked the wrong analogy with Newtonian mechanics. The reason for this is that, in the end, there are flaws in Newtonian mechanics and this was known at least at the turn of the 20th century. If you want to choose an appropriate analogy, you need to look at what supplanted Newtonian mechanics: relativity. When Einstein came out with his theories of relativity, it was something of a paradigm shift, much like the recent discoveries in climate science. A lot of people didn't like that. Including a lot of physicists (including at least two Nobel laureates). (There's an article in New Scientist but the text of the article can be found here. There's also a Wikipedia article.) Newtonian mechanics are, as you said, clear and easy to understand. Relativity, on the other hand, is non-intuitive and difficult to understand. It challenged people's notion of what the universe was like and people didn't like that. Reading about the relativity denial, it has struck me that there is a lot of similarity between them and the current climate change deniers. The relativity deniers complained that they couldn't get published because of a conspiracy by the proponents of relativity, just as we hear that scientists opposed to climate change can't get published due to conspiracies against them. If you want to use a current analogy, I think you need to look at evolution. Like climate change science, there's an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting evolution. And, yet, you will still find plenty of people who deny it, even biologists, because it challenges their view of the universe.
76856. Mark Harrigan at 23:56 PM on 20 August 2011
       Climate Denial Video #5: Settled science and impossible expectations
       Is there anyway a download of this video can be obtained?
       Response:

       [DB] If you are using Internet Explorer, it may be possible to pull a copy out of the IE cache file (this works about half the time for me).  You'll have to rename the file and the file extension to a .FLV file type.  If that doesn't work, 3rd party software packages are available to do all that for you.

76857. muoncounter at 23:49 PM on 20 August 2011
       There is no consensus
       DSL#411: "Survey schmurvey." Agreed. But look how many times SkS is dragged into yet another harangue about the survey based on the easily-misinterpreted 'consensus' question. Far more relevant was the comment made here, scientific societies and academies across the world agree with these statements. In fact, because of that we have not consensus but consilience, which is explained further here: Multiple strands of evidence from varied sources all leading to the same conclusion, as opposed to 'our club members all agree with other'. As was said here, that's the only important survey: a survey of the evidence. Don't believe the results of what is basically an opinion poll? Spare us your opinion; show us the evidence the science is wrong.
76858. RickG at 23:43 PM on 20 August 2011
       There is no consensus
       Rickoxo, I think one important concept concerning both the Dorian and the Anderegg papers is that they stick specifically with the scientists who work and publish in the field. Conversely, what we see from the skeptic/denial side is signed petitions from people completely outside any field of research pertaining to climate science with little exception. I think it is also noteworthy to point out that the few skeptical papers that do get published are rarely with the mainstream journals and generally are reviewed by reviewers not in the field of those submissions. As for the qualifying idea of number of publications and citations to one's credit, it is very significant. Experience does count and a paper that is cited by others numerous times indicates good work. Papers with no or few citations are generally of poor quality or contain little if any useful information.
76859. adelady at 23:28 PM on 20 August 2011
       There is no consensus
       Rick. For the non-expert one way to see, literally see, the accumulated evidence is right here on Skeptical Science at History of Climate Science. Watching the evidence pile up on one hand, and the tiny assembly of other papers on the sidelines is striking. As for "...the types of questions experts in the field say are a done deal and the types of questions they say are still open to debate." The central issue is now and always has been the radiative physics of gases. This tells us what to expect for the atmosphere at eventual equilibrium. The questions that are up for examination or needing further evidence are, by and large, about the transition period. I'd put them in 2 categories. One is about marching orders - what goes first and at what speed. Clearly the loss of Arctic ice has elbowed its way to the front at astonishing speed and shows no sign of slackening that pace. Floods, droughts, crop losses look, so far, to accord with expectations of the amount of warming so far in evidence. Things like major SLR, loss of icesheets and methane releases from clathrates are still in the 'could be a century or so, might be a couple of decades' basket. The other category is 'work in progress'. Lots of this on transient sensitivity. Lots more for assembling and analysing data on OHC, feedbacks and the like. This category is also the 'more funds needed' and 'more time needed' group. If we'd had half a dozen more satellites collecting more and different data for more examination and analysis over the last 10 years, a lot of the topics people like to pick arguments about (eg clouds, aerosols) would already be done and dusted. But about warming and its cause, not a skerrick of doubt.
76860. Eric (skeptic) at 23:15 PM on 20 August 2011
       It's microsite influences
       Capital Weather Gang (now part of Washington Post) noted that the NWS in Sterling VA noted that 2011 is the "warmest summer on record" through Aug 17th at National Airport (KDCA). http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/pm-update-widely-scattered-storms-this-evening-drier-saturday/2011/08/10/gIQAX4LQQJ_blog.html The problem is that it isn't. National has fresh dark gravel spread around their thermometer site (new google satellite compared to old) and they are consistently high by 2-3 degrees on radiational cooling mornings. The anomaly doesn't show up as much on windy or cloudy mornings. National's lows are also 5 to 10 degrees higher than neighboring weatherbug sites (mostly at schools) but that is a river and heat island influence that hasn't changed much over the years. If the washpost link above doesn't work (their site is sometimes unruly), the NWS discussion was also quoted here; http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php/topic/23896-record-summer-watch-where-will-we-finish/
76861. skywatcher at 22:58 PM on 20 August 2011
       Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
       And the Moon is tidally locked to the Earth, but not to its primary energy source, the Sun. Pink Floyd were wrong, there is no 'Dark Side' of the Moon! No Solar Sysatem object we know of is tidally locked for synchronous rotation to the Sun, though a few planetary moons, of which ours is one, are locked to their parent planets.
76862. Mark Harrigan at 22:57 PM on 20 August 2011
       Christy Crock #7: Expensive and inaccessible (Part 2)
       This thread makes some good points but it is time to stop quoting Jacobson and Delucchi as an authoritative source. They have been fairly strongly debunked by a source who could hardly be called climate change deniers (indeed the opposite). Having said that clearly energy efficiencies are part of the answer and we should pursue them with vigour, along with reduction in consumption as much as we can in the profligate west. I do like the points about distributed power and Solar PV. I believe the cost per KWh is becoming more and more attractive - particularly when we realise that we really need only compare the cost of production (on the rooftop) NOT with the cost of production from a large power station but with the delivered cost from a centralised source. Given that transmission and distribution costs can be almost half of the delivered cost this is a significant factor. I do wonder if we can help the world's poor (who lack access to a proper grid) to go the de-centralised track and (for example) have lots of local Solar PV. Of course this won't work everywhere but superficially one might suspect it would be a great approach for large parts of the poor regions in sub-Saharan Africa? Perhaps the authors could expand on the relevant examples they quote of this in a separate thread?
76863. DSL at 22:34 PM on 20 August 2011
       There is no consensus
       Rickoxo, be careful. You used Anderegg's term "unconvinced" early and then switched to "not agree." Your Newtonian example also devolves into an either-or (and only involves a single idea). I'll wager that 90% of those 10% agree with much of the basis of AGW but are unwilling to commit for one reason or another. Spencer and clouds, for example. You can be unconvinced by the theories of Freud but also find a lot of truth in them. As for the earlier complaint about the significance of the human contribution, it's up to the survey taker to interpret significance. If you don't trust the survey maker with the word, how do you answer? This does turn into an either-or if you do use the statistical measure of significance. CO2 is the control knob, and the human injection of atmospheric CO2 has been the difference. You remain skeptical, though, based on the evidence of surveys. Surveys do not effectively measure the response to the complexity of the theory and, more importantly, its implications. If you're going to leave it at the survey level, then 90% should convince you. If I give you a 90% chance of winning a million dollars with a 10 dollar ticket, I don't think you'll pass the chance on to the next in line. If 90 people tell you you're about to get hit by a bus, and they all give the same reasons, and ten people tell you you're not but all their reasons are different, and some of the ten disagree with others of the ten, are you going to move your butt or keep sauntering? You can answer "I'm not convinced" with your academic mind, but your practical mind is screaming "move it!" Better yet, though, just work out the basics for yourself. It only takes a few hours--less if you accept certain assumptions. If you accept the absorption spectra of the ten most populous atmospheric gases, and if you accept the evidence of rising CO2 concentrations and the mass balance argument, then you're halfway there. Just accepting those basics will, in fact, stop you from having to read probably half of the "skeptical" arguments rebutted on this site. I will note that I'm with Sphaerica on this issue. Survey schmurvey. The survey still needs to be interpreted for the public, and the public has been well-trained to say, "yah, but it's just a survey and surveys can say anything." A survey certainly isn't going very far in the professional community. They make great copy for guys like Joe Romm, but he's largely preaching to the choir.
76864. CBDunkerson at 19:05 PM on 20 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       John Brookes wrote: "Also, I think Muller deserves an honourable mention for infuriating the denialists by replicating the existing terrestrial temperature data with his own analysis. I'm almost thinking that he is a mole in the denialist ranks." Muller definitely isn't a 'mole'. He has been spreading too many ridiculous 'skeptic' claims (e.g. 'not a single polar bear has died due to global warming') for too long. Whether having independently confirmed that things he previously promoted as heroic truths are in fact completely false (e.g. the surface temperature records are heavily biased by urban heat island effects) will cause him to re-examine the rest of the BS he has been peddling remains to be seen. If he stops saying things which are demonstrably false then I'd agree he wouldn't belong on this page any more... however, if he continues doing so then the links to pages debunking false claims should remain.
76865. Dikran Marsupial at 18:51 PM on 20 August 2011
       Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
       Dr Doom I didn't presume ignorance, you demonstrated ignorance here (trying to estimate equilibrium climate sensitivity using a timespan over which equilibrium couldn't possibly be reached), here (thinking a logatithmic relationship implied a finite limit) and now here (CO2 absorption is saturated). In each case the issue you raise has been answered; it is not my fault that you have taken the answers badly. There is no shame in not understanding something, we all start from that position and none of us should object to being told that we don't understand something. It is part of normal science. I am not making this personal, just trying to help you to realise that you are starting from a set of misconceptions, which appears to be preventing you from moving forward. Now I know that dy/dx tends to zero as x increases for log(x). However I have already told you that this does not mean that log(x) tends to a finite value (and given a reference). I have already explained to you that CO2 radiative forcing is described in terms of doublings for precisely this reason (as x gets larger the increase you need to get a constant increase in forcing doubles). To show you this is true, using the rules of logarithms log(2x) = log(2) + log(x) which implies that log(2x) - log(x) = log(2) In other words, if you double x, its logarithm changes by a constant amount, i.e. log(2). This is true for any value of x. A logarithmic relationship does not imply an upper limit on temperature (y). Such a limit will ocurr in practice because the logarithmic law probably only applies to trace gasses, however this limit is way too high to have any bearing on AGW. As scaddenp points out, the idea that CO2 already abosrbs 90% of IR radiation emitted by the surface is a skeptic argument based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how the greenhouse effect actually works. It is not absorption at the surface that matters, it is absorption in the upper atmosphere that matters. As well as the SkS link that scaddenp provided, there is also an excellent explanation of this by Spencer Weart at RealClimate.
76866. Rickoxo at 16:34 PM on 20 August 2011
       There is no consensus
       RickG, great cite, thanks for throwing it in. Wow, what a difference from Doran. Incredibly rigorous, careful, precise, hits me as a powerful study. Two things hit me most strongly in reading it, one, a slight problem with Anderegg's using publication frequency as a proxy for expertise, but the main thing, Anderegg's finding that 10% of climate scientists with at least 20 publications are unconvinced by the evidence for GWS. The 2 second take on Anderegg's using publication frequency as a proxy for expertise is that I think every single journal in which these articles were published are put out by scientific societies that have made public statements asserting that GWS is a settled issue. I don't think it's a reasonable assumption that the likelihood of getting published is equivalent for both sets of scientists. At least in education, it's much easier to get published in a journal that agrees with the major tenets of your research than in one that disagrees with them, even though both journals are dealing with the same topic. But the killer for me in this article, Anderegg came up with 90% in the convinced camp and 10% in the unconvinced camp (CE = 817, UE = 93), a hugely overwhelming and solid finding, but one that leaves 10% of climate scientists with at least 20 publications unconvinced by the evidence for GWS. So try out this idea and tell me if it helps folks understand what I'm facing as a skeptic. I absolutely guarantee, bet every penny I have, that there wouldn't be 93 out of 910 physicists with at least 20 journal publications who don't believe Newtonian mechanics describes simple observable motion of objects. Those laws are easy to understand, can be empirically validated any time and there wouldn't be 10% of the physicist community saying objects don't accelerate when they fall or momentum doesn't = mass times velocity. In the post on the homepage, "The Big Picture", Dana1981 wrote, "Sometimes people ask 'what would it take to falsify the man-made global warming theory?'. Well, basically it would require that our fundamental understanding of physics be wrong, because that's what the theory is based on. This fundamental physics has been scrutinized through scientific experiments for decades to centuries." If this is the case, how can 93 climate scientists with at least 20 publications not agree with you?
       Response:

       [DB] So, if 9 cardiologists out of 10 said you need open heart surgery STAT, but the outlier said to take 2 aspirins and see how you felt in the morning, you'd be OK with that?

       Similarly, if 9 out of 10 oncologists said you had a form of cancer requiring the most agressive course of chemo and radiation to survive, but the other one recommended some holistic therapy, you'd be OK with that?

       Because that is what you are essentially saying: the outlier has equal credibility.

76867. Kooiti Masuda at 15:08 PM on 20 August 2011
       Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
       From my experience in the Japanese-speaking part of the Internet, I have a piece of caution. Tracking a piece of material (e.g. a carbon atom) and evaluating mass balance are different things. Some AGW skeptics insist that, because the mean residence time of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is around 3 years, anthropogenic emissions cannot affect climate more than at this time scale. They claim that such introductory remarks as“nearly half of fossil-fuel CO2 remains in the atmosphere”are wrong assuming that the expression must reflect tracking of CO2 molecules. Surely the introductory remarks should be composed a little carefully indicating that this is a issue of mass balance. I tried to discuss as follows (though I am not sure whether the audience understood.) Even if an “anthropogenic” CO2 molecule go to the ocean, a “natural” CO2 molecule can fill the place, then the anthropogenic effect to the mass of CO2 in the atmosphere does not change.
76868. Rickoxo at 15:04 PM on 20 August 2011
       There is no consensus
       Sphaerica, while I get the issue of consensus is a bit of a red herring, I think that consensus actually serves as a proxy for is the important question, is the science settled? Attempting to assess consensus gives us a window into that question. I like your progression from 1-6, but I don't quite buy the pattern idea that it at least hits me you're suggesting. I had never heard of Doran (2009), it was cited here as evidence that scientist agree in the high 90% range with the basic premises of GWS. That is a simple proposition that can be evaluated apart from being a never ending progression of denial at every turn. It hits me that as part of the peer-review process of making sure only the best quality resources get cited as evidence for GWS positions, I'd think the GWS community would kick out the Doran paper because it so easily opens them up to criticism. I partly picked the issue of consensus because it's more accessible to the non-scientist, I live in the world of grant writing and publishing so I have a lot of experience with some of the effects of consensus and I'm very curious about the proposition that the science is settled. Since I am not so capable (or have the time/energy) of going into all the science and determining its validity for myself, one of the ways I can partially address the question is look around in the community of experts to see the range of opinions expressed. Pretty much no one questions whether or not we should teach systematic phonics to support beginning readers--the consensus is established, the research base is solid and it's pretty much a done issue. But figuring out the line from yes teach systematic phonics, but the exact methods, the amount of time per/day, the books that best support phonics instruction, all of those secondary questions aren't so settled. Some of what I'm hoping to see in the consensus debate are the types of questions experts in the field say are a done deal and the types of questions they say are still open to debate.
76869. owl905 at 14:53 PM on 20 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       "Well are or aren't claims that the Earth has presently suffered harm scientifically based?" Yes, but your choice of words is a trick and a trap, isn't it? There's scientific support to the claims of some of the damage. Extreme events like record floods, storms, droughts, heat waves, arctic disruption, all combine the science, the expectation, and the observation. It shows up in places like your insurance premiums and food prices.
76870. scaddenp at 14:52 PM on 20 August 2011
       Models are unreliable
       And yet another thought - if we were getting an extra 2W/m2 of solar radiation (twice the range of the 11 year solar cycle), would you say that models were incapable of predicting that this would warm the planet?
76871. scaddenp at 14:47 PM on 20 August 2011
       Climate Skeptic Fool's Gold
       Anthony Mills, I have put a further comment here
76872. scaddenp at 14:46 PM on 20 August 2011
       Models are unreliable
       For Anthony Mills - you might like to consider that you can make useful prediction with even very simple models. eg Broecker's model However, it is also fair to say that climate models have no skill at short period prediction, not even decadal, for reasons that include your concerns.
76873. scaddenp at 14:37 PM on 20 August 2011
       Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
       " They say IR absorption is already over 90% implying that we only have less than 10% to go to reach the limit." Dr Doom, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of this thread but it is a common misconception. Please see CO2 effect is saturated thread. If the article doesnt answer your question, I suggest you continue there. The Science of Doom article (well the whole sequence of articles) does deal with this in some detail.
76874. muoncounter at 14:16 PM on 20 August 2011
       Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
       More on Guvna Perry The man is a buffoon (and I can say that because I live in his state).
76875. RyanStarr at 12:58 PM on 20 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       If you look at the arguments behind the photos many don't actually address the so-called 'Climate Myth' but rather just play an exercise in tit for tat. Look at Muller's entry for a prime example: "claims that global warming has harmed the Earth so far are not scientific". Well are or aren't claims that the Earth has presently suffered harm scientifically based? The 'reality' posted is that negatives outweigh positives. That doesn't address what he said at all. I could mention a lot more that's just one concise example.
       Response:

       [dana1981] Every rebuttal specifically addresses the myth in question.  If the one-liner response is too succinct for your taste, click the link to see more detail.

76876. LazyTeenager at 12:52 PM on 20 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       ginckgo at 10:28 AM on 19 August, 2011 Do we really have to bow to their bullying and call them 'skeptics' instead of 'deniers'? -------- No, but this is the name they want to use. They have made an iron rod for their own back, since they have changed the meaning of climate skeptic to mean " I will believe anything as long as it makes my fear of AGW go away." Terms like denier they can twist: those wicked warmists are calling us Nazis, cry, sob. They cannot twist "climate skeptic" because it is their own. Use the term "climate skeptic. As often as possible.
76877. LazyTeenager at 12:42 PM on 20 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       alan_marshall at 09:59 AM on 19 August, 2011 What I notice is the abundance of grey hair. ---------- I have noticed that old people feel the cold more. So maybe it's a case of not wanting to move to warmer climes like old people do now. They want the warmer climes to move to them.
76878. John Brookes at 12:38 PM on 20 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       Can we have Bolt & Jones as well? Also, I think Muller deserves an honourable mention for infuriating the denialists by replicating the existing terrestrial temperature data with his own analysis. I'm almost thinking that he is a mole in the denialist ranks.
76879. muoncounter at 12:19 PM on 20 August 2011
       Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
       DrDoom#237/239: "y = ln (x) where y is temp. and x is CO2. The CO2 sensitivity is the derivative dy/dx defined as the change in temp. per unit change in CO2." This may be the source of your continued misunderstanding. The logarithmic function in question relates radiative forcing to relative CO2 concentration: delta F = 5.35 ln [CO2(t)/CO2_ref], where t is time and CO2_ref is a baseline value, usually taken as ~280ppm. Forcing F is measured in watts/m^2 delta T = lambda delta F, where T is temperature The sensitivity parameter lambda can be seen as the derivative of T wrt F, not T wrt CO2 as you have repeatedly claimed. The function ln x is indeed concave down; it is in fact unbounded, with a derivative that approaches (but does not reach) zero as x increases. But to find a time derivative of temperature, dT/dt, we need the function CO2(t). Taking measured values of CO2 over time, we find that CO2(t) is strongly concave up. Temperature as a function of time is thus both increasing and concave up; a net positive forcing, regardless of CO2 concentration, causes temperature increase. Increasing the forcing (increasing the CO2) increases the rate at which temperature changes. Further discussion of this particular point is more appropriate to the thread linear warming.
76880. Dr. Doom at 12:09 PM on 20 August 2011
       Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
       Dikran, In scientific discussion, you don't presume ignorance or lack of understanding. You explain why the argument is flawed. Focus on the argument not the person. I presume you understand my point. If CO2 sensitivity is logarithmic, then the sensitivity dy/dx is diminishing and approaching zero. At a certain value of x (CO2), increases in CO2 will no longer increase temp. I think it is important to know what that value is. In essence, that is a physical limit on y (temp.) Now, I understand your point about doubling CO2 will always increase temp. by the same amount. However, in reality you cannot do this forever because to get the same temp. increase down the road, you need almost infinite amount of CO2. In reality, there will be a diminishing CO2 sensitivity. We can speculate that the ‘physical limit’ on temp. is far down the road. But it is better to calculate this value than to speculate. An accurate calculation of the sensitivity of doubling CO2 does not tell us anything about where the ‘physical limit’ is, whether it is near or far the current temp. Since this website is about answering the skeptical arguments on climate change, I suggest you take a look at this issue because it is one of the skeptical arguments. They say IR absorption is already over 90% implying that we only have less than 10% to go to reach the limit.
76881. Tom Curtis at 12:04 PM on 20 August 2011
       Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
       Alex @11, Mercury is not tide locked.
76882. Alex C at 10:47 AM on 20 August 2011
       Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
       "On Mercury, there is no heat distribution and very little thermal inertia; before the sunrise..." Isn't Mercury tidally locked? How can it have a sunrise or noon? I see the note that the concepts discussed probably apply to tidally locked planets, but Mercury *is* tidally locked. Was the Moon meant as the example at this point?
76883. Byron Smith at 10:41 AM on 20 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       After spring chicken Motl (1973), I think that Tony Abbott (1957) is the youngest of the lot.
76884. scaddenp at 09:46 AM on 20 August 2011
       Climate Skeptic Fool's Gold
       Mills - yes to questions. You might like to consider how much difference it would make to planetary energy balance if latent component was out was 5%. It will affect the accuracy of predictions about heat distribution, but the energy imbalance remain, ergo, planet continues to heat up. This discussion belongs in "Models are unreliable".
76885. scaddenp at 09:38 AM on 20 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       garethman - if there really is a piece of actual science that runs contrary to the main line view, then it will be published and then get commented on. What's around in the pseudo-science blogs etc just does not cut it. If you want see real skepticism then try our tearoom, but junk "science" doesnt cut it. So do you have a peer-reviewed science paper that you think should be discussed? An idea has got to clear that bar to get much serious consideration.
76886. alan_marshall at 09:35 AM on 20 August 2011
       Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
       John, The fact that Watts rates you as his number one enemy is a great compliment to you and the contributing authors. Hats off to Dana and Mark for an excellent piece!
76887. Tom Curtis at 09:16 AM on 20 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       guinganbresil @53: 1) A person can reasonably be understood as insisting upon the logical consequences of that on which they do insist. Insisting that the names of proponents of views not be mentioned when discussing those views, or that opinions not be indexed by their proponents has the effect of granting the benefit of anonymity to people who are using their apparent immunity to criticism in public life to launch vicious and slanderous attacks against climate scientists. 2) It is quite clear that Skeptical Science has not personalized this. They have done no more than index opinions by the names of the authors of those opinions. The fact that those people espoused those opinions was already a matter of public record, so if anybody has personalized this, it is those authors in not issuing anonymous opinions. You seem fundamentally confused about the difference between critiquing a persons views and launching an attack on their person. Skeptical Science does the former. It tries to restrict the later with its comments policy. Les @10 was frankly, talking nonsense. This is a witch hunt, what we see above is an index.
76888. Tom Curtis at 09:07 AM on 20 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       guinganbresil @53, like it or not, the first recorded use of the word "denier" was in 1536 (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary). That it was then used some 450 years later to describe holocaust deniers is no reason for it to be suddenly cease being used in any other context. In particular, that climate change deniers are working themselves into a manufactured outrage over that descriptive term is no reason to cease accurately describing them.
76889. RickG at 08:42 AM on 20 August 2011
       There is no consensus
       Rickoxo, What about Anderegg 2010?
76890. keithpickering at 08:41 AM on 20 August 2011
       Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
       Minor quibble: The sentence reading: "because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (carbon-12 and 13); thus they have lower carbon-13 and 14 to 12 ratios. " ... would be better read as: "because plants have a preference for the lighter isotope (carbon-12); thus they have lower carbon-13 and 14 to 12 ratios."
76891. Bob Lacatena at 08:40 AM on 20 August 2011
       There is no consensus
       406, Rickoxo, You seem to put a lot of thought into this. I think part of what you need to realize is that this need for scientifically establishing a consensus is itself a red herring. People don't ask to see scientific proof that scientists believe that the genetic code surrounding ATCG is accurate, or that planets really have been discovered around other stars. What we have is: 1) A branch of science where the people who work in the field know what is accepted and what is not to varying, imperfectly fuzzy degrees (i.e. normal science) 2) A group of people who have questioned the validity of the science because they don't like the answer 3) The fact that the vast majority of people in the field do accept the science and the conclusions as far as they go 4) A group of people who then take it a step further and question not only the science, but whether scientists actually agree about the science 5) A scientist who created a study to determine the strength and characteristics of any consensus 6) A group of people who then take exception to the study, insisting that it is invalid for various reasons (not a representative sample, not a well worded question, not applicable to the problem as a whole) Do you see a pattern here? Do you see this happening with any of the other thousands and thousands of areas of science? My own opinion concerning your opinion is that if you don't trust the consensus or Doran, then do what the rest of us have done... read enough scientific papers to move beyond trying to water the consensus down to a yes no question and a percentage of respondents, and instead read enough of the current literature to realize how few people disagree and how many people do agree with each other's findings. Personally, I do wish Doran would repeat his study to accomplish what you're asking. Make it a long questionnaire, with more specific questions and a larger population sample. But honestly, I don't see the point, and I don't need that degree of analysis to define the consensus for me, and I think that most people (I'm not saying you) who are requiring that sort of proof of consensus are just going to move on and add a point number 7 (and then 9, and then 11) to my list above.
76892. guinganbresil at 08:38 AM on 20 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       Tom Curtis @44, at no time did I "insist that not only should deniers be able to libel climate scientists and launch vicious attacks against climate scientists, but they should also have the advantage of effective immunity..." It is undeniable that Skeptical Science has "personalized this": Names & Pictures, references in the comments to "rogues gallery", "dammed(sic)" etc. The question is whether or not it stoops to Alinsky's level. les @10 rightly warns of a "witch hunt" domain. Moderator [JC] @40, from your response I understand where you are headed with this new SkS resource - it is reasonable and I believe it can be done professionally. I apologize for my evisceral response @40. On my first read, I saw "denier" vice "skeptic" in the post and my error put the whole post in a very negative light - admit it or not, the term "denier" is a not-so-veiled allusion to "Holocaust Denier". There are plenty of other sites to organize personal attacks, it would be a shame for SkS to join them.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] The term "denier" is in no way an allusion to holocaust denial. "Denial" has a specific meaning in psychology that is pretty close to its usage here, note that Wikipedia gives defintions of:

       • simple denial - deny the reality of the unpleasant fact altogether
       • minimisation - admit the fact but deny its seriousness (a combination of denial and rationalization)
       • projection - admit both the fact and seriousness but deny responsibility.

       It is not difficult to find examples of these types of denial in the list of most used climate myths ("its not happening","its not bad","its not us"). Yep, seems like a good match to me. It isn't a term I like to use, except where unequivocally warranted, but linking it to the Holocaust is just hyperbolic rhetoric.
76893. Rickoxo at 08:15 AM on 20 August 2011
       There is no consensus
       I get that Doran (2009) is just one study, but we can't argue about every paper and every thread all at the same time, so it makes sense to me to see what Doran (2009) actually proves, especially since I had never heard of it before I got here and folks on this site brought it up and cited it as evidence. DSL, I have no problem saying CO2 is a mechanism for warming and represents the significant role humans have played, I accept that 100% and I bet that most skeptic scientists would agree as well. The issue is the jump you're making from Doran's simple two questions (has the planet warmed since 1800 and have humans played a significant part) to your statement that accepting those two is essentially accepting the theory of AGW. Doran says pretty much what you said at the end of his piece, "It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. I agree that the planet has warmed since 1800, but agreeing with that does not in any way commit me to agreeing that humans caused the majority of that warming. The biggest flaw in Doran's survey is the wording of the human impact question. Having a significant effect does not mean anything about size. You said you were in ed research so you know tests for significance mean very little, effect sizes are everything. I get CO2 has gone up, I mostly get it causes warming but I am not convinced how much warming it's caused, what percent of the variance in temperature from 1800 till now has been caused by humans. Doran never asked this question so he has no grounds to speculate on an answer and when folks here cite the results from this survey as an example of agreeing with AGW science in general, that jump doesn't follow from the data. It could follow from all sorts of other places, but it doesn't get any support from Doran (2009). When Doran said there is no debate over the role of played by human activity, he has no evidence for that statement. The wording of his human impact question is so poor that it leaves open all sorts of possibilities for yes answers on the survey that wouldn't at all indicate agreement with ICPP conclusions or even his own summary. Because he included nothing at all about the degree to which human activity is responsible for the warming since 1800, the degree to which human activity explains the variance in temperatures, just saying 90%+ of scientists surveyed agree that human activity deserves to be in the list of factors is not a helpful piece of information. It says nothing about Doran being a fraud or dumb or anything, just that that survey question isn't useful in supporting the argument for a strong statement of consensus (like IPCC 2007). It also doesn't in any way imply there isn't consensus, it gives no evidence against consensus, but Doran (2009) is not evidence of a consensus of any significant position. If I were a scientist receiving this survey and unless I wanted to lie to thwart what I thought was the intention of the survey, I'd answer yes to both of those questions as well and I don't know of many skeptics that wouldn't as well. But when you have a question that doesn't reliably differentiate betweeen two fairly distinct groups of participants, it's just a bad question. And since we've never seen any of the other data and Doran says these are his two most important findings, it pretty much knocks out any usefulness of his study. In the light of this site as a model of peer review, I saw a response to Doran by Murray Goot (http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/commissioned-work/the-%27scientigic-consensus-on-climate-change%27.pdf). The author made the same point I'm making, that the question is so poorly worded as to make it of little value, but the author goes on to give a broader lit review saying there's other evidence of consensus so Doran isn't necessarily wrong. Again, I'm saying nothing about there not being consensus, I'm not saying Doran did fraud or anything bad. Writing surveys is incredibly challenging work and sometimes in writing questions, you come up with ones that don't actually give you the information you were hoping to get at. I'd love to see folks on this site get that Doran (2009) is fundamentally flawed and stop referring to it as evidence of consensus.
76894. Tom Curtis at 07:59 AM on 20 August 2011
       Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
       Dana and Mark, excellent post! You mention that d13C has been declining since about 1850. This is well illustrated by measurements taken from corraline sponges: The secondary source of the image is from Ferdinand Engelbeen. Although he is a skeptic of AGW, he retains his ability to think critically, and his page on CO2 is an excellent resource, as is his take down of Beck's nonsense. Interestingly, Engelbeen has posted his arguments on Wattsupwiththat, so Anthony Watts knows the evidence against Salby's view. Indeed, reading Watt's post on Salby, he never endorses Salby's views. Rather he couchs all comments of the impact of Salby's views in conditionals. It appears he is just feeding his sharks some climate denial chum.
76895. Anthony Mills at 07:41 AM on 20 August 2011
       Climate Skeptic Fool's Gold
       My apologies:an attempt to be brief led to a misleading statement.The"about 2W/m2 "was intended to be an indication of the change in radiation forcing due to observed CO2 increases,and this change is at least an order of magnitude less than the latent heat transport.My comment is a response to dana's statements "Climate models have already proven that they can make accurate predictions" and"Because it is based on solid,fundamental physics,climate science---" Central to computer climate models is the coupling at the air-ocean/land interface through a surface energy balance in which the latent heat component is so much larger than the changes in CO2 radiation forcing under consideration .Can this component be calculated using"solid fundamental" physics with a meaningful error bound? If not ,I doubt whether the models can make satisfactory "predictions" of CO2 effects.
76896. Bob Lacatena at 07:06 AM on 20 August 2011
       Models are unreliable
       382, rcglinski, I'm not sure that anyone could do what you ask except for a primary researcher working with the model in question, and then I think that compiling and presenting that information is a fair amount to ask of that person, even with their familiarity. I also think the models are so complex that the result may be many, many pages long, and require a lot of supporting information. All in all... I think (I could be wrong) that your request is way, way out of line with what is reasonable. Anyone who has that level of interest needs to go to the models and look at them themselves. Beyond that, there is a huge, huge wealth of information below these comments, under Notes, including links to papers, pages about modeling, and blog articles. Maybe a list of links to the pages for the GCMs, as well as those that can be downloaded and run by the really ambitious, should be added to that, but again... if you're that involved that you're going to do that much work, then you can use Google to find them.
       Response:

       [DB] Bob, I don't believe the Notes section is viewable.  If there's a relevant section in it, you may want to post it in a comment.

76897. DSL at 06:39 AM on 20 August 2011
       A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
       Coincidentally, I just read the first chapter of Stuart Ewen's PR! A Social History of Spin. It is indirectly relevant to this and other threads, and it may answer guiganbresil's concerns about why this thread attacks individuals and, as in neilrieck's link, "Why Americans Continue to Deny Climate Change." Briefly: because SkS wouldn't exist if concerned science knew how to effectively battle the forces arrayed against it. The science doesn't explain itself. Explaining the science isn't enough. Every attempt to misrepresent the science must be addressed, and that must be done efficiently, because organized misinformers are allowed every PR trick in the book. They don't have to make sense; they just have to do what it takes shift public opinion. It then becomes efficient to attack individuals who have become PR-bots repeating the same range of arguments--not ideology-driven arguments, but arguments for the sake of power: arguments for the sake of opinion-making. Devalue a robot to the extent that it becomes useless, and the purchaser of robots is forced to buy another one. And occasionally one of these discarded robots rediscovers his/her humanity. Hammer Bastardi's bizarre physical model. Hammer Spencer's Fun With Variables. Hammer Salby's New Improved Physical Model for a New, Postmodern, A-Historical You. Hammer E&E and their potpourri of industry-friendly, uhhh, research. Hammer their "science" through them. Kill two birds with one stone. As for neilrieck's linked question "Why?": because they've been largely constructed to be receptive to the tools that power uses to make their opinions. Conspiracy? Not at all. Read the chapter.
76898. BKsea at 06:34 AM on 20 August 2011
       Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
       The response to skepticism of human generated increases in C02 in the atmosphere seems simple to me. We know we transformed a lot of carbon from oil/coal into atmospheric CO2. If some of it has not accumulated in the atmosphere, where did it all go? It did not turn back into oil. Please point to it and demonstrate that it is there now. Likewise, if temperature rise caused natural increases in CO2, it had to come FROM somewhere. Please point to where it was and demonstrate that it is gone. (OK, this is just conservation of mass, but I think it makes the point better than saying "what about conservation of mass" to people who don't understand science)
76899. rcglinski at 06:10 AM on 20 August 2011
       Models are unreliable
       This page could be improved a lot by considering at least one global circulation model. Pick one that's referenced in IPCC AR 4, describe the initialization state, describe the data series being fed as inputs, show the output over the time period between when the model was written and the present, then compare its predictions to predictions of less complex models like a time series. I actually think a lot of folks who come to this page will be surprised by the lack of such a comparison.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] You can probably find most of this at climateprediction.net, although you would have to add the time series models yourself. I am not sure there is much point in comparison with the time series models, for a start would they give coherent spatial predictions? This sort of comparison has been done, and the model runs etc archived (search for CMIP3). However writing a good blog article on this would be a huge amount of work and beyond my capabilities (and I have worked with the models!).
76900. MA Rodger at 06:00 AM on 20 August 2011
       Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
       I seem to be accused @#7 of suggesting that the laws of physics can be rewritten or suggesting some inter planetary flux of CO2 is a possibility. I'm sure more mundane speculations can be dreamt up to fit the role - mundane but of course still fantasy. The carbon cycle is very strongly "settled" as described @#9. It is highly improbable that this siutation will be scientifically challenged. Any scientific challenge really must address that "settled" status quo as emphasised @#8.

Prev  1530  1531  1532  1533  1534  1535  1536  1537  1538  1539  1540  1541  1542  1543  1544  1545  Next